No. of Recommendations: 108
Am separating copied snips with [....] for conciseness. Paraphrasing will follow. All facts will be bolded in both pasted material and in my edited parts.

Governor Romney does not understand the value Americans place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation [....] it is important to set the record straight and let facts speak for themselves. The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about 1/100th of 1% of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating. A national survey by bipartisan firms Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over 2/3 of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate funding of public broadcasting.

As a supposed supporter of education, Romney SHOULD champion public broadcasting. Last night revealed he has no qualms about wiping out services that reach the vast majority, including the underserved like children who can't attend preschool and rural citizens. For more than 40 years, PBS[....] has served as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts and civil discourse. Earlier in 2012, a Harris poll confirmed that Americans consider PBS the most trusted public institution and the second most valuable use of public funds, behind only national defense, for the 9th consecutive year.

Public television and radio stations are locally owned, community- focused, and they are experts in financial efficiency to make limited resources produce results. In fact, for every $1.00 of federal funding invested, they raise an additional $6.00 on their own – a highly effective public-private partnership.

Isn't it pretty clear by now what will happen if Mitt has his way??

Numerous studies -- including one requested by Congress earlier this year -- have stated categorically that while the federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively modest, the absence of this critical seed money would cripple the system and bring its services to an end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pbs-mitt-romney-deb...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
spl241 wrote: Isn't it pretty clear by now what will happen if Mitt has his way?

What Romney said is, "I will ask a simple question about every federal program: is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

Therefore...Is PBS so integral to this nation's survival that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? I say no.

PBS will go on, but it will survive through VOLUNTARY contributions from people like you and me. If you feel so strongly about the continuance of PBS, get out your checkbook and send them some money.

Easy peasy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What Romney said is, "I will ask a simple question about every federal program: is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

How much of the US federal debt does China actually hold?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you feel so strongly about the continuance of PBS, get out your checkbook and send them some money. Easy peasy.

Nice churlish challenge from a Remonstrate Endlessly For Conservatism regular, I see. My kids are 35 and 38 now, and when they were delighted by Big Bird and Elmo, I had very little money to donate to much of anything. Once they outgrew Sesame Street and I started to discover things like Nova, Newshour, and Frontline, donating became easier when my pay increased and my wife went back to work. PBS has gotten a 3-digit donation from us every year for several years. Ok, Ok so it starts with a $1, lol.)

I'm not smart enough to know all the ins and outs of what "borrow from China to pay _______" means. Despite your opposite POV, however, I have very strong reservations about obstructing PBS funding for the simple reason that millions from 9 months to 90 years enjoy what it provides so much.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In other words for the REpublicans its kill Big Bird and build more multi-million dollar military pieces of equipment that don't or won't work and which we have no real need for anyway.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you said screetching, instead of scorching, it would have been at least funny.

Helper,

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 72
Is PBS so integral to this nation's survival that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? I say no.

That's fine, but you've taken quite a leap from what Romney said. "important" and "critical" are different than "integral to this nation's survival".

I hope that we strive to do more than "survive", but to thrive.

The point made by the OP is that funding PBS *is* important, and moreover is not only an exceedingly small fraction of the federal budget, but is also a fraction of the appropriations for military equipment the Pentagon doesn't even want -- appropriations Mr. Romney wants to *increase*.

If you want to talk about stuff not "integral to this nation's survival", you'd do better to start there.

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My personal opinion that Romney's crack about PBS was dumb, but it sounded great to some who don't like it.

PBS is going nowhere, the government only funds a small amount of it anyway, and Romney knows it would get voted down.

I used to donate quite a bit to PBS until they got so blatantly ridiculous about some shows I didn't like it anymore, except for a few cooking shows.

For that matter so has History, TLC, the science channel and National Geographic gotten stupid and at times blatantly biased.

How many episodes of Ice Road Truckers do they think can hold my attention? At least the Pawn Shop one shows the guys are really pretty smart about what they are doing, although they try to pass them off as "goobers"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let's take the politics out of it for just a moment.

Is it your belief that PBS could not survive without the 17% of its funding that it gets from the CPB?

PBS, as well as even Sesame Street, already have significant corporate sponsors. Could not the private sector help raise the difference?

What about the revenue from their shows? Sesame Street makes well over $100 million a year just in licensing fees. Who knows how much it makes from toys and other licensing.

Back to the politics:

Romney's comment about PBS in that setting was a bonehead move. I am sure there are dozens of other, less popular programs he could have highlighted to make his point, even though federal funding for PBS is one that should be considered cut.

Hawkwin
Who donates to the arts and education (locally) every year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Who donates to the arts and education (locally) every year.

I'm happy to hear that you do so, and hope that more people who have the means will. But fact is, many cannot.

PBS offers many valuable public services that contribute to the greater good of all. It's a fraction of a penny out of your wallet, a fraction very well spent.

Really. What's the big deal here? Are we going to start asking for Big Bird's birth certificate next?

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 98
What Romney said is, "I will ask a simple question about every federal program: is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"


Is having a 15% capital gains tax rate so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Cross quote from and thanks to 2828:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/big-373719-bird-mitt.html

"Okay, I may be taking this further than Mitt intended. So let's go back to his central thrust. The Corporation of Public Broadcasting receives nearly half-a-billion dollars a year from taxpayers, which it disburses to PBS stations, who, in turn, disburse it to Big Bird and Jim Lehrer. I don't know what Big Bird gets, but, according to Sen. Jim DeMint, the President of Sesame Workshop, Gary Knell, received in 2008 a salary of $956,513. In that sense, Big Bird and Sen. Harry Reid embody the same mystifying phenomenon: they've been in "public service" their entire lives and have somehow wound up as multimillionaires.

Mitt's decision to strap Big Bird to the roof of his station wagon and drive him to Canada has prompted two counter-arguments from Democrats: 1) half a billion dollars is a mere rounding error in the great sucking maw of the federal budget, so why bother? 2) everybody loves Sesame Street, so Mitt is making a catastrophic strategic error. On the latter point, whether or not everybody loves Sesame Street, everybody has seen it, and every American under 50 has been weaned on it. So far this century it's sold nigh on a billion bucks' worth of merchandising sales (that's popular toys such as the Subsidize-Me-Elmo doll). If Sesame Street is not commercially viable, then nothing is, and we should just cut to the chase and bail out everything.

Conversely, if this supposed "public" broadcasting brand is capable on standing on its own, then so should it. As for the rest of PBS's output – the eternal replays of the Peter, Paul & Mary reunion concert, twee Brit sitcoms, Lawrence Welk reruns and therapeutic infomercials – whatever their charms, it is difficult to see why the Brokest Nation in History should be borrowing money from the Chinese Politburo to pay for it. A system by which a Communist Party official in Beijing enriches British comedy producers by charging it to American taxpayers with interest is not the most obvious economic model. Yet, as Obama would say, the government did build that."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Lawrence Welk reruns
___________

Heh those are fun to watch every now and then, if I want to spend an hour or reliving the past.:) Reminds me of my grandma and my Lennon sister paper dolls.

Other than that, Sesame Street could indeed stand on its own.

What I don't get is why those that "stand on their own" channels like TLC, Discovery, History, etc that I pay premium money for are getting stupider and stupider, as is PBS.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir specials, especially those at Christmas, are usually on PBS and much beloved and appreciated by millions of viewers. Wonder what Mitt would say about losing those?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 61
Is it your belief that PBS could not survive without the 17% of its funding that it gets from the CPB?

I worked for many years in the non-profit sector and can tell you without a doubt that the seed money that the government provides to an organization like PBS is indeed very crucial to its survival. Non-profits have to scratch and scrape for every bit of funding out there. People think that they can just "write a grant" but that is pure fantasy. The fact that the government provides a reliable portion of funding, even if it is a minority of the overall budget, is money that they don't have to pay an expensive consultant like my wife to go out and develop. It is likely that PBS would survive *in some form* without public support, but then it would no longer be public broadcasting, with its myriad advantages in terms of quality and educational programming that is not dictated by commercial concerns.

This isn't about the incredibly insignificant amount PBS funding adds to our deficits. There were no-bid military contracts in the Iraq War that by themselves could have funded PBS fully for decades. Mitt's conspicuous selection of PBS for the chopping block has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or "borrowing from China." This is about the right wing's ongoing war against education, science, and culture.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
Conversely, if this supposed "public" broadcasting brand is capable on standing on its own, then so should it. As for the rest of PBS's output – the eternal replays of the Peter, Paul & Mary reunion concert, twee Brit sitcoms, Lawrence Welk reruns and therapeutic infomercials – whatever their charms, it is difficult to see why the Brokest Nation in History should be borrowing money from the Chinese Politburo to pay for it.

Not every PBS show is for everyone. It's *meant* to be inclusive. But to suggest that old/dead musicians and infomercials is what PBS is all about just tells me that the person who wrote that doesn't know much about PBS.

Let's talk about Nova: The science program that's won numerous awards over it's nearly 40 years, and is shown in classrooms nationwide.

Let's talk about Masterpiece (I used to know it as Masterpiece Theater): The longest running prime time drama series that has garnered 57 Emmys, 17 Peabodys, and two Academy Award nominations.

Let's talk about PBS News Hour: 60 minutes of commercial-free news programming that devotes enough time to each of it's stories to go in-depth on the topics of the day, instead of the 90 seconds or so network broadcasts devote to each story.

Yeah, and let's talk about Sesame Street. And Frontline. And American Experience. And Austin City Limits (one my very favorites). And Baking With Julia. And This Old House. And Magic School Bus. And Bill Nye the Science Guy...the list goes on and on.

Or instead, let's dismiss PBS as a bunch of Lawrence Welk reruns funded by the Chinese Politburo, because that makes the argument against PBS seem like one worth having.

But it's not.

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir specials, especially those at Christmas, are usually on PBS and much beloved and appreciated by millions of viewers. Wonder what Mitt would say about losing those?
________________________________

Mitt, unless most Dems if pretty rational. I would guess he would say, with millions of folks really enjoying it, there would be no problem selling advertising time and someone paying to televise it.

That is what would happen to all the popular stuff.

This ain't rocket science
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"What Romney said is, "I will ask a simple question about every federal program: is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?""

He can say that because he doesn't have to find or create jobs for all the people that would become unemployed and uninsured by the lose of those programs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
TMFSpeck wrote: I hope that we strive to do more than "survive", but to thrive.

The only way this nation can thrive is to get its debt under control. Until that happens, we're in survival mode.

Like Romney said, it's IMMORAL to spend money like a drunken sailor, PRINTING IT to make more spending possible, thereby treating the Treasury like an ATM machine, saddling our progeny with so much debt it's mathematically impossible to ever pay it off.

If your household was (say) a million dollars in debt, and your household income was $100,000 per year, would you continue borrowing and spending money so that your family could "thrive" or would you (rightly) decide that the basic necessities are all you can afford right now until you put your fiscal house in order.

One could say half a billion dollars is a mere rounding error in the great sucking maw of the federal budget, so why bother? But it's demoralizing for hard working Americans to have their pockets picked when the government isn't even trying to be frugal and efficient. The way the U.S. Treasury operates is morally wrong and Mitt Romney aims to steer us to fiscal sanity.

And that's why I'm voting for him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hawkwin wrote: Romney's comment about PBS in that setting was a bonehead move. I am sure there are dozens of other, less popular programs he could have highlighted to make his point, even though federal funding for PBS is one that should be considered cut.

He used PBS and Big Bird as an example that everyone knows. He could just as well have talked about the 166 entities, most of them duplicative, that provide government housing assistance in this country, but that would've taken far more time to explain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Beridian wrote: Is having a 15% capital gains tax rate so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

The theory is that when people labor under a tax policy that allows them to keep more of their own damb money, they also spend more money.

I want to decide how I will spend my money. That's freedom.

The government deciding how it's going to spend my money is confiscatory and antithetical to the Constitution.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
FoolishVintner wrote: This is about the right wing's ongoing war against education, science, and culture.


As Romney said, education is best handled at the local level.

Science is best pursued by the profit seeking private sector.

Culture is going to be culture whether government is involved or not.

What does government bring to any of the above? Nuthin'. Absolutely nuthin'.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
FoolishVintner wrote: I worked for many years in the non-profit sector and can tell you without a doubt that the seed money that the government provides to an organization like PBS is indeed very crucial to its survival.

There's more than one way to skin a cat (apologies to cat lovers).
Without government largesse, this type of programming will have to get creative and find other ways to be funded.

Think outside the box.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
"What Romney said is, "I will ask a simple question about every federal program: is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?""---ccinoc

Are you willing to keep borrowing from China, Russia and Syria in order to keep our military at it's current level?

Are you willing to keep buying oil from terrorists in order to get it cheap?

Looks like you want to cut PBS funding and give it to the terrorist countries.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Silliness. Worrying about PBS is like crowing that you are being frugal with your budget because the change you found under the couch is now going in the cookie jar. Meanwhile, say, your toilet is leaking 800 gallons a day, adding $1K/month to your water bill.

But hey, I didn't waste any money on a plumber! And that 6 cents is safely stored away for a rainy day!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Silliness. Worrying about PBS is like crowing that you are being frugal with your budget because the change you found under the couch is now going in the cookie jar. Meanwhile, say, your toilet is leaking 800 gallons a day, adding $1K/month to your water bill.

But hey, I didn't waste any money on a plumber! And that 6 cents is safely stored away for a rainy day! ____________________


I just dislike stupid,

Found money? No PBS is not found money. It is spent money.

It is really saying, well I am in trouble, but if my kid wants 200 dollar sneakers, well I am broke anyway, why not be a little more broke

I did not waste any money calling a plumber? That is so stupid an analogy it is nearly unbelievable. There is no connect at all to cutting spending on what is no more than a goody.

Your utter lack of perspective is quite typical and is a large part of the problem.

Will PBS spending being stopped solve the problem? No. Will a mindset that says is this really needed? No then stop it -- solve the problem?

Yes, but there is no liberal that will admit that. I have my ideas why, but they all make liberals out to be bad people. SO I will not bother with them, I will just allow them to make believe they have a point while they play with utterly absurd false narratives as you have.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Silliness. Worrying about PBS is like crowing that you are being frugal with your budget because the change you found under the couch is now going in the cookie jar. Meanwhile, say, your toilet is leaking 800 gallons a day, adding $1K/month to your water bill.

But hey, I didn't waste any money on a plumber! And that 6 cents is safely stored away for a rainy day!
============================================

While I understand your point.

Not worrying about PBS is a bit like not worrying about the 100.00 cell phone bill, the 100.00 water bill, the 100.00 a month eating out bill, etc. because they are small amounts, when the rent is 1000.00, the insurance is 1000.00, the credit card bill is 20,000.00.

Dropping the cell to a less expensive plan, reducing the amount of water used, and reducing or eliminating the eating out will make a dent in the credit card bill.

Just because an amount in the budget is small compared to other expendatures doesn't mean it should be looked at.

I, personally, think PBS is worth keeping, but maybe it's funding could be reduced.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
The proportions are all wrong for your examples, though. It isn't a $200 pair of sneakers or a cell phone bill. It's two cups of coffee.

Per the Christian Science Monitor (and most other sources) PBS is 0.01% (1/100th of 1%) of the federal budget. To spin the numbers:

Say I have an $80,000 salary. Now a lot goes to taxes, etc - but $8 represents the PBS %. Now will saving that $8 over the year (or reducing it to $4) help me? Well, sure. But it isn't even close to what is creating problems with my budget. The cell phone bill ($100/month) or those $200 sneakers are far more relevant.

Complaining about PBS is like saying you can keep a $400,000 mortgage and a $20K car loan because you've decided you are going to drink one less cup of coffee a year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Per the Christian Science Monitor (and most other sources) PBS is 0.01% (1/100th of 1%) of the federal budget. To spin the numbers:____________________


Comparable to a pair of senakers to a family making 50,000 dollars a year and falling behind on the mortgage.

The analogy works just fine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Comparable to a pair of senakers to a family making 50,000 dollars a year and falling behind on the mortgage.

The analogy works just fine.
_____________________

Actually I take it back, the analogy does fail a little more than I admitted.

The sneakers as opposed to PBS are actually fairly needed, and merely overpaid for as opposed to total excess.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Actually I take it back, the analogy does fail a little more than I admitted.

The sneakers as opposed to PBS are actually fairly needed, and merely overpaid for as opposed to total excess.




LOL!
You really don't need to announce this stuff.
It's obvious from your posts that those on the "right" here do not like PBS and probably never watch it.

It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth (in your case: keyboard) and remove all doubt.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Comparable to a pair of senakers to a family making 50,000 dollars a year and falling behind on the mortgage.

The analogy works just fine.

lowstudent,

medicare is the problem with the federal budget. There is no getting around this. No one is paying in for what they get out of it. No one.

We need to truly rein in costs, so Obama took the Republican plan from 1993, the plan Romney used in Mass, and he got it through congress without any Republican support.

It is time for the Republican party to come to grips with the fiscal reality.

The next part of the budget is deficits and taxes. If the deficits keep on growing, which they will regardless of party or cuts to medicare, then the rich need to either pay a higher tax rate now, or a much higher tax rate later. The higher the deficits go the higher the tax bracket will go on the wealthy in time.

We need to change health care inflation. WE are spending close to 20% of GDP on health care, there are plenty of savings to be made there. So as I just said we passed the Republican plan.

Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Comparable to a pair of senakers to a family making 50,000 dollars a year and falling behind on the mortgage.

The analogy works just fine.

No. You are off by two orders of magnitude. I ran the numbers above, but to use your base number:

$50,000 base salary
0.0001 x $50,000 = $5 (that is 1/100th x 1%)
$5 for sneakers? No.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
lowstudent says

Mitt, unless most Dems if pretty rational.

I love you for your command of the English language.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
N56629 wrote: Are you willing to keep borrowing from China, Russia and Syria in order to keep our military at it's current level? Are you willing to keep buying oil from terrorists in order to get it cheap?

1st question: No. If the focus is on building wealth in this country and helping people move out of poverty to the middle class so that they can pay taxes, too, as Mitt Romney recommends, there will be more tax revenue and less need for foreign debt.

2nd question: No. If the focus is on mining our nation's resources, as Mitt Romney suggests, we'll become independent of foreign energy resources.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
jerryab wrote: How much of the US federal debt does China actually hold?

There are several pie charts on the Internet that illustrate this point. Here's one.

Who funds our reckless spending?

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=how+much+u.s.+debt+is+held+by...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
N56629 wrote: Are you willing to keep borrowing from China, Russia and Syria in order to keep our military at it's current level? Are you willing to keep buying oil from terrorists in order to get it cheap?

__________________

Well yeah, I understand doing what has to be done.

If the person who would take me over, wants to lend me money to stop them? OK I will borrow, I have no real choice but defend myself -- watching reruns of Lawrence Welk and Sherlock Holmes with an honest English accent? Slightly different.

IF the terrorists have something that they can sell to anyone that will do me some good in fighting them? Sure I will but it from them at the cheapest price available rather than them sell it to someone else and me spend more to get it from someone else. To do otherwise is just friggin stupid.

WIll I perhaps spend it on in-obvious defense like Syria where I can get involved now or wait until stuff starts blowing up here and get in a bigger fight later? Even if I disagree with the thesis I can understand why someone would spend that money.

Stupid premise for a defense of PBS, but no surprise there
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Jeanwa wrote: I, personally, think PBS is worth keeping, but maybe it's funding could be reduced.


I would venture to say that, percentage-wise, the number of libruls who put their money where their mouth is and open their wallets when PBS asks for money is in the single digits. Libruls always want the government to pay for things. They LOVE spending OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

I challenged my most librul friend on this issue. I said, "If you're willing, let's see what you spent on programs that you think are worth saving in the past 12 months." She wouldn't show me her bank statements (of course) but she did admit that she didn't support PBS personally even though her two school-age children enjoy the program very much.

This woman isn't poor, either.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
jerryab wrote: How much of the US federal debt does China actually hold?
___________________________

Just because cluelessness abounds on PA, that's not actually the issue
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
AngelMay wrote: You really don't need to announce this stuff. It's obvious from your posts that those on the "right" here do not like PBS and probably never watch it.

PBS is not the point at all! Don't you get it?! We as a country are spending our way into oblivion!

Must America actually explode for libruls to understand the grave fiscal issues confronting us as a nation?!

Haven't you read the various alarming reports of the Congressional Budget Office?!

PBS is REPRESENTATIVE of the areas in which government has no business being! Romney used PBS because everyone knows who/what PBS and Big Bird are. He could just as well have talked about the 166 U.S. housing entities that assist with housing.

Can you imagine the GOVERNMENT feeling compelled to put a roof over its citizenry's heads? It's insane!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The theory is that when people labor under a tax policy that allows them to keep more of their own damb money, they also spend more money.

Oh? Are you going to buy TEN Iphone5's rather then FIVE (all at once) for your own personal use (i.e. NOT for friends and family)? Or do intend to buy just ONE for you to use?

Are you going to buy SEVEN new cars this year for your own personal use? Or just ONE?

And so on.

People do NOT buy "more stuff" unless they are like Paris Hilton. So what you are saying is Mitt and conservatives are like Paris Hilton.

You and the rest of the conservatives are knowingly voting for Paris Hilton for President. Nothing more needs to be said.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What does that have to do with what I said?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
" If the focus is on mining our nation's resources, as Mitt Romney suggests, we'll become independent of foreign energy resources."

Now that is planning ahead. You obviously don't have a clue.

Use our own resources and we will forever become independent? LOL forever!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh? Are you going to buy TEN Iphone5's rather then FIVE (all at once) for your own personal use (i.e. NOT for friends and family)? Or do intend to buy just ONE for you to use?

None for me thanks, but I would intend to cut back on how much I went out to eat, vacations, additions on my house, improvements in my home, and a myriad of other purchasing actions if my taxes were going to be significantly higher next year. No doubt about it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
NBC news last night reported that the PBS budget amounts to about SIX HOURS of the Pentagon budget!

Interesting.

Vermonter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 64

I would venture to say that, percentage-wise, the number of libruls who put their money where their mouth is and open their wallets when PBS asks for money is in the single digits. Libruls always want the government to pay for things. They LOVE spending OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.


This is one of the stupidest statements from a Rightie that I have read on PA in a very long time. Then again, I have read enough of this poster's drivel to consider the source. Nevertheless, one should never confuse blind ignorance with simple partisanship.

I believe that liberals are more than willing to support non-profit causes with hard-earned dollars. In this particular instance, more than 80% of PBS's funding comes from non-government sources. I have no way to know the breakdown; but I must assume that corporations, libruls, democrats in general and even <GASP> republicans contribute. To put libruls in the single-digit category would appear to be as much woefully ignorant as disingenuous and purposefully misleading. Or maybe just deluded, magical thinking on your part. It is a stupid assumption without any verifiable basis in fact, nor even imagination. To continue down that same ignorant road and maintain that libruls want the government to pay for things under the pretense of wanting the government to spend other peoples' money solely for the sake of doing so is simply doubling down on your flagrant and arrogant ignorance.

My annual contribution to various PBS entities is in the (low) thousands of dollars. I value their programing and I enjoy certain components myself, all the while appreciating that much of their programing, while not of much interest to me personally, does benefit many others unknown to me.....Those would be my (catholic) Biblical kin.

You need, sir, to sit your sorry, ignorant a$$ down in front of the TV and watch some Big Bird. Thereby you might learn some basic learning skills, common decency, reasoning skills and respect and appreciation for the common weal.

I refrain from putting you in the p-box because I always want to know what the mentally-challenged are up to, the better to refute the ignorant political poison they are so prone to throw about so indiscriminately.

I believe that public support is such that PBS could well survive a total cut in government funding. There are enough libruls and like-minded people of all political persuasion to guarantee its continued survival and success. This doen not mean that I think their funding should be cut for the sake of the misguided wishes of a minority of ignorant, vindictive Luddites such as yourself.


Jimbo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PBS will go on, but it will survive through VOLUNTARY contributions from people like you and me. If you feel so strongly about the continuance of PBS, get out your checkbook and send them some money.


Wars will go on but if they're going to continue it should be through VOLUNTARY contributions from people like you and me. Anyone who feels strongly about the continuation of various and sundry wars, get out your checkbook and send some money to the Pentagon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Say I have an $80,000 salary. Now a lot goes to taxes, etc - but $8 represents the PBS %.

Wow...the price of 3 "venti" Starbucks coffees. For the entire year. That's nothing. And Mr Mitt thinks this will make any difference?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I challenged my most librul friend on this issue. I said, "If you're willing, let's see what you spent on programs that you think are worth saving in the past 12 months." She wouldn't show me her bank statements (of course) but she did admit that she didn't support PBS personally even though her two school-age children enjoy the program very much.

This woman isn't poor, either.


I call BALONEY on that one.

First, righties are experts at making up people.

Second, I don't believe that this guy has any "librul" friends or acquaintances.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement